Unified search across x402 services, MCP servers and A2A agents.
Args:
intent: Natural-language query.
protocol: Optional filter: "x402", "mcp" or "a2a".
top_k: Max resources to return (1-50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_k | No | ||
| intent | No | ||
| protocol | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, side effects, or return format beyond the basic function. The output schema exists but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with three short lines plus an argument list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence is informative without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of multiple specialized sibling tools and no guidance on when to use this unified version, the description feels incomplete. It lacks prerequisites, behavior details, and clarity on scope, even though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by explaining intent as a natural-language query, protocol as an optional filter with enumerated values, and top_k with a range. However, with 0% schema coverage and no enums in schema, it could be more precise (e.g., expected format for intent).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified search across x402 services, MCP servers, and A2A agents, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from specialized siblings like search_mcp_servers and search_a2a_agents by being the unified version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its specialized alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer unified search over specific searches like search_mcp_servers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes. However, 'search', 'search_mcp_servers', 'search_a2a_agents', 'search_resources', and 'ask_services' have overlapping discovery functions, though descriptions differentiate them (e.g., LLM ranking vs deterministic). This could slightly confuse an agent.
Naming conventions are mixed: some follow 'verb_noun' (e.g., ask_services, list_categories), some are single verbs (get, register, search, stats), and some use underscores (search_a2a_agents, search_mcp_servers). The pattern is not fully consistent but remains readable.
11 tools is well within the recommended 3-15 range for a directory server covering x402, MCP, and A2A services. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without bloat.
The toolset covers core directory operations: discovery (multiple search variants), details, registration, safety scanning, and stats. Missing update/delete for services is a minor gap but not critical for basic usage.